In-group bias (Us/Them) is ingrained not just in humans but also in all hominids and many primates too. Preferring my family and my people over your family and people has nothing to do with "xenophobia" but everything to do with safety and survival. Kin groups and other social bonds were the social security, welfare, military and police before these things existed.
Only people far removed from the struggle to survive could even contemplate the idea of turning their societies into open bazaars where whoever arrived yesterday is a much a member of the community as someone whose family has been there multiple generations.
Universal egalitarianism is another remnant of our dying Christian roots ("There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."), but has become the sine qua non of liberal morality mostly because of the needs of the global marketplace and of our progressive aristocracy, who believe fervently in their own providential destiny to rule and who are held together not by nationality but by ideology, conformity and class interests.
Xenophilia/xenophobia has been made the hinge of modern liberal morality because of profits and because of the power needs of various bureaucrats, academics and journalists, who posit themselves as an enlightened priesthood ("Anyone can love their families, we love everyone!"), and who have ably weaponized this sentimentalized humanism as a way to paint all their opponents as dangerous and backwards bigots reeking of incipient Nazism.
One of the best parts of living at the top of the social pyramid in the very rich and very safe West is being able to wave away biology, anthropology or any inconvenient facts as too "unenlightened" to take seriously, to ignore it because no one else in your social strata would even think it. But all peoples and countries prefer themselves over arriving strangers—the Chinese keep out the Koreans, the Pakistanis keep out the Afghans, the Dominicans keep out the Haitians, etc etc.
None of this is bigoted or xenophobic, it is simply prioritizing reality and survival over the Marxist-Lennonist fantasy that defines Social Justice ideology, the great faith of our age held by all Western liberals.
I don't buy that xenophobia is morally functional, even if it's functional in the sense that there are countries that have high trust + high xenophobia. Tons of rotten combinations have existed as far as civilizations go, and simply being extant isn't deserving of a trophy for virtue. I think trust itself is a conformity mechanism that punishes deviance, and therefore any out-group one can identify winds up on the shit list – immigrants and other cultures being the most obvious scapegoats in this case.
Xenophobia, just like any behavioral strategy, can be beneficial or harmful, depending on context.
Be too xenophilic, or better yet, erect a taboo that compels people to be indiscriminately xenophilic, and you might allow people into your country who make it worse off long term.
Even more importantly, we should consider whether xenophilia, say in its form of "colorblind equality" is feasible at all in a human society. The communist ideal of economic equality keeps sounding good on paper to many despite total failure. Colorblind equality sounds even better, but what results does it have to show for itself?
It's sufficient to halt immigration. The long-term trend is below-replacement fertility for all human populations, with WEIRD populations having the highest fertility.
Many won't be that moderate, even assuming that fertility hypothesis is correct.
If an authentic identitarian/remigration party ever wins and the propaganda stops, what compelling moral reasons will you give the populace why they should subsidize a slew of costly and hostile minorities forever in their lands? If instead they can be peacefully incentivized to leave (cut benefits, sponsor repatriation etc)?
I'm talking more about Europe than the US/Canada here. I don't see this very feasible in the US/Canada anymore.
The propaganda will never stop. The populations of Europe, especially those of northwest Europe, have an usually high capacity for empathy and guilt. That won't change. And plenty of people will continue to exploit this psychological weakness. So that won't change either.
Bismark said that politics is the art of the possible. It's also the art of knowing what is most important. Your priority should be to halt immigration and to keep it halted for at least the next three decades. That goal, in itself, will use up most of your political capital.
To quote another 19th-century politician: "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Unlike Teddy Roosevelt, the current crew of "slopulists" seem to be doing the opposite, like carrying out high-profile ICE raids in red states when far more can be done by removing the incentives for immigration, i.e., by implementing e-verify and by enforcing minimum wage laws.
So I agree with your point about removing the incentives for immigration. But isn't "remigration" a lot more than that? Isn't it the removal of people who were born in Europe and have full citizenship rights?
To be trusted, one must be trustworthy. Trust must be earned. Betrayal of trust must have consequences.
Tautological.
Not at all. Unearned trust is foolish. Trust which continues after it has been betrayed is doubly foolish.
Blather. Read some Plato if you can manage.
In-group bias (Us/Them) is ingrained not just in humans but also in all hominids and many primates too. Preferring my family and my people over your family and people has nothing to do with "xenophobia" but everything to do with safety and survival. Kin groups and other social bonds were the social security, welfare, military and police before these things existed.
Only people far removed from the struggle to survive could even contemplate the idea of turning their societies into open bazaars where whoever arrived yesterday is a much a member of the community as someone whose family has been there multiple generations.
Universal egalitarianism is another remnant of our dying Christian roots ("There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."), but has become the sine qua non of liberal morality mostly because of the needs of the global marketplace and of our progressive aristocracy, who believe fervently in their own providential destiny to rule and who are held together not by nationality but by ideology, conformity and class interests.
Xenophilia/xenophobia has been made the hinge of modern liberal morality because of profits and because of the power needs of various bureaucrats, academics and journalists, who posit themselves as an enlightened priesthood ("Anyone can love their families, we love everyone!"), and who have ably weaponized this sentimentalized humanism as a way to paint all their opponents as dangerous and backwards bigots reeking of incipient Nazism.
One of the best parts of living at the top of the social pyramid in the very rich and very safe West is being able to wave away biology, anthropology or any inconvenient facts as too "unenlightened" to take seriously, to ignore it because no one else in your social strata would even think it. But all peoples and countries prefer themselves over arriving strangers—the Chinese keep out the Koreans, the Pakistanis keep out the Afghans, the Dominicans keep out the Haitians, etc etc.
None of this is bigoted or xenophobic, it is simply prioritizing reality and survival over the Marxist-Lennonist fantasy that defines Social Justice ideology, the great faith of our age held by all Western liberals.
Bad things happen when folks can no longer rely on their governments to "do the right thing".
I don't buy that xenophobia is morally functional, even if it's functional in the sense that there are countries that have high trust + high xenophobia. Tons of rotten combinations have existed as far as civilizations go, and simply being extant isn't deserving of a trophy for virtue. I think trust itself is a conformity mechanism that punishes deviance, and therefore any out-group one can identify winds up on the shit list – immigrants and other cultures being the most obvious scapegoats in this case.
"Simply being extant isn't deserving of a trophy for virtue."
It is better to live than to be a dead man for the rest of your life.
Alternate reply: history is written by survivors, and survivors get to define their past as "virtuous."
re: declining fertility
There is also the possibility of a more child-friendly lifestyle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00U0C9HKW
Starting with Gen-Z: https://lukelea.substack.com/
Try not to laugh.
Xenophobia, just like any behavioral strategy, can be beneficial or harmful, depending on context.
Be too xenophilic, or better yet, erect a taboo that compels people to be indiscriminately xenophilic, and you might allow people into your country who make it worse off long term.
Even more importantly, we should consider whether xenophilia, say in its form of "colorblind equality" is feasible at all in a human society. The communist ideal of economic equality keeps sounding good on paper to many despite total failure. Colorblind equality sounds even better, but what results does it have to show for itself?
The extreme form of xenophobia is Talmudism.
I disagree.
I wonder what aporia does think of "Remigration" .Like literal remigration
This was my take:
https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/renaud-camus-and-remigration
—NC
It's sufficient to halt immigration. The long-term trend is below-replacement fertility for all human populations, with WEIRD populations having the highest fertility.
Many won't be that moderate, even assuming that fertility hypothesis is correct.
If an authentic identitarian/remigration party ever wins and the propaganda stops, what compelling moral reasons will you give the populace why they should subsidize a slew of costly and hostile minorities forever in their lands? If instead they can be peacefully incentivized to leave (cut benefits, sponsor repatriation etc)?
I'm talking more about Europe than the US/Canada here. I don't see this very feasible in the US/Canada anymore.
The propaganda will never stop. The populations of Europe, especially those of northwest Europe, have an usually high capacity for empathy and guilt. That won't change. And plenty of people will continue to exploit this psychological weakness. So that won't change either.
Bismark said that politics is the art of the possible. It's also the art of knowing what is most important. Your priority should be to halt immigration and to keep it halted for at least the next three decades. That goal, in itself, will use up most of your political capital.
To quote another 19th-century politician: "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Unlike Teddy Roosevelt, the current crew of "slopulists" seem to be doing the opposite, like carrying out high-profile ICE raids in red states when far more can be done by removing the incentives for immigration, i.e., by implementing e-verify and by enforcing minimum wage laws.
So I agree with your point about removing the incentives for immigration. But isn't "remigration" a lot more than that? Isn't it the removal of people who were born in Europe and have full citizenship rights?